Patna High Court
Randhir Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 4 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7166 of 2020
======================================================
Vivek Jha (Male) aged about 46 years, Son of Late Ganesh Jha, Resident of
Village and P.O. Haripur, P.S. bahera, District-Darbhanga.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Health Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director-In-Chief, Health Services, Bihar, Patna.
4. The Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
5. The Bihar Medical Services and Infrastructure Corporation Ltd., Hospital
Road, Shastri Nagar, Patna through the Managing Director.
6. The Managing Director, The Bihar Medical Services and Infrastructure
Corporation Ltd.,Hospital Road, Shastri Nagar, Patna.
7. The Chief General Manager, The Bihar Medical Services and Infrastructure
Corporation Ltd., Hospital Road, Shastri Nagar, Patna.
8. The General Manager (P and D), The Bihar Medical Services and
Infrastructure Corporation Ltd., Hospital Road, Shastri Nagar, Patna.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7846 of 2020
======================================================
Raj Tanay Raj Construction Pvt. Ltd., Ray Bhawan, Near Registry Office,
Gopalganj through its Managing Director, Manish Ranjan (Male), aged about
42 Years, Son of Bhola Prasad Ray, resident of Ray Bhawan, South to
Registry Officer, Marwari Mohalla, Manikpur, P.O. and P.S. Gopalganj,
District-Gopalganj.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Health Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director-in-Chief, Health Services, BIhar, Patna.
4. The Principal Secretary, Finance department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
5. The Bihar Medical Services and Infrastructure Corporation Ltd., Hospital
Road, Shastri Nagar, Patna through the Managing Director.
6. The Managing Director, The Bihar Medical Services and Infrastructure
Corporation Ltd., Hospital Road, Shastri Nagar, Patna.
7. The Chief General Manager, The Bihar Medical Service and Infrastructure
Patna High Court CWJC No.7166 of 2020 dt.04-02-2021
Corporation Ltd., Hospital Road, Shastri Nagar, Patna.
8. The General Manager (P and D), The Bihar Medical Service and
Infrastructure Corporation Ltd., Hospital Road, Shastri Nagar, Patna.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7856 of 2020
======================================================
Randhir Kumar (Male), aged about 41 years, son of Sri Mahesh Patel,
resident of village and P.O. Gurmiya, P.S. Kartahan, District- Vaishali at
Hajipur.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Health Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director-in- Chief, Health Services, Bihar, Patna.
4. The Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
5. The Bihar Medical Services and Infrastructure Corporation Ltd., Hospital
Road, Shastri Nagar, Patna through the Managing Director.
6. The Managing Director, The Bihar Medical Services and Infrastructure
Corporation Ltd., Hospital Road, Shastri Nagar, Patna.
7. The Chief General Manager, The Bihar Medical Services and Infrastructure
Corporation Ltd., Hospital Road, Shastri Nagar, Patna.
8. The General Manager (P and D), The Bihar Medical Services and
Infrastructure Corporation Ltd., Hospital Road, Shastri Nagar, Patna.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7921 of 2020
======================================================
Nalin Ranjan (male), aged about 43 years, Son of Late Rajendra Thakur
Resident of Mohalla- Bibiganj, Brahmpura Road, Near Dr. R.N. Thakur, Ward
No.7, Bhagwanpur, P.O.- Bhagwanpur, P.S.- Muzaffarpur Sadar, District-
Muzaffarpur.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary Health Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director-in- Chief Health Services, Bihar, Patna.
4. The Principal Secretary Finance Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
Patna High Court CWJC No.7166 of 2020 dt.04-02-2021
5. The Bihar Medical Services and Infrastructure Corporation Ltd., Hospital
Raod, Shastri Nagar, Patna through the Managing Director.
6. The Managing Director The Bihar Medical Services and Infrastructure
Corporation Ltd., Hospital Road, Shastri Nagar, Patna.
7. The Chief General Manager The Bihar Medical Services and Infrastructure
Corporation Ltd., Hospital Road, Shastri Nagar, Patna.
8. The General Manager (P and D) The Bihar Medical Services and
Infrastructure Corporation Ltd., Hospital Road, Shastri Nagar, Patna.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7166 of 2020)
For the Petitioner : Mr.Shashi Bhushan Kumar Manglam, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr.Lalit Kishore Advocate General
Mr. Braj Bhushan Mishra, AC to AAG 9
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7846 of 2020)
For the Petitioner : Mr.Shashi Bhushan Kumar Manglam, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr.Lalit Kishore Advocate General,
Mr. S.D. Yadav, AAG 9
For BMSICL : Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7856 of 2020)
For the Petitioner : Mr.Shashi Bhushan Kumar Manglam, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr.Lalit Kishore Advocate General
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7921 of 2020)
For the Petitioner : Mr.Shashi Bhushan Kumar Manglam, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr.Lalit Kishore Advocate General,
Mr. S.D. Yadav, AAG 9
For BMSICL : Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 04-02-2021
All the batch of writ applications involve the same
question of fact and law and with consent of the parties, all the
writ applications have been heard together and they are being
disposed of by this common judgment.
Petitioner in CWJC No. 7166 of 2020 is aggrieved
by the notification contained in Memo No.7806 dated
30.09.2016 contained in Annexure-5 of CWJC No. 7166 of
2020.
Patna High Court CWJC No.7166 of 2020 dt.04-02-2021
Mr. S.B.K. Manglam, learned counsel for the
petitioner, would submit that in this case the tender of the
petitioner was found responsive by the technical committee, yet
Board of Directors have decided to cancel the tender of the
petitioner and invite fresh tender.
Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned Advocate General
appearing on behalf of the State, would submit that in the very
first process of tender, no one submitted tender and therefore,
inviting fresh tender was compulsion of the respondents and
fresh tender should be read as the first tender for all practical
purposes. Referring to Clause 27 of Annexure-2, learned
Advocate General would submit that in case of the first tender,
the respondents were justified in taking decision to invite fresh
tender on the ground of solitary tender.
On perusal of the materials available on record and
documents appended to the writ applications, the Court finds
that earlier tender was invited but there was no response to the
first tender and as a matter of compulsion, the respondents have
to invite fresh tender. In the fresh tender, petitioner submitted
his tender as his tender was found to be responsive by the
technical committee. However, in the meeting of the Board, it
was decided to invite fresh tender as the petitioner was solitary
Patna High Court CWJC No.7166 of 2020 dt.04-02-2021
tenderer. In the case of solitary tender in the process of first
tender, then no reason is required to be assigned except that the
single tender was the reason for fresh tender but if it is
construed as second tender then in that situation, the
respondents are under obligation to assign reasons for inviting
fresh tender if they decline to accept the tender submitted by the
petitioner if found in order and responsive by the technical
committee.
Mr. Manglam, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioners in other batch of cases, would submit that in
all cases there was second tender and therefore, reason was
required to be assigned by the respondents whereas learned
Advocate General would submit that since there was single
tender there is no reason except single tender for inviting fresh
tender is enough.
Learned Advocate Gender further submits that the
matter relates to construction of hospital and in larger public
interest, the Court should not interfere in the affairs of the Board
unless decision of the Board is arbitrary. He refers to the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Jharkhand
Vs. CWE-SOMA Consortium [(2016) 14 SCC 172] and submits
that while exercising judicial review, the matters involving
Patna High Court CWJC No.7166 of 2020 dt.04-02-2021
public interest like construction of hospital unless the decision is
arbitrary and shook conscientious of the Court, Court should not
interfere. Ordinarily scope of judicial review is limited and the
Courts are not expected to interfere in the decision of the
authority. The Court may exercise power of review very
sparingly in case involving larger public interest under Article
226 of the Constitution. The respondents have themselves
decided vide Annexure-5 that in case after evaluation by the
technical committee the technical bid is found responsive, the
authority higher may take appropriate decision in case of single
bid.
In CWJC No.7166 of 2020 there was dispute
whether there was second tender being fresh tender to invite on
account of no response to the very first tender notice but in other
cases there is no dispute that the first tender was rejected on the
ground of solitary response and in the process of second tender,
the respondents have taken decision to reject the tender on the
ground that the tender of the petitioners was solitary one.
On consideration of the rival submissions, the Court
finds that the present case is case of fresh tender and in case of
fresh tender, technical bid of the petitioners was found to be
responsive. The Board exercising power in terms of Annexure-
Patna High Court CWJC No.7166 of 2020 dt.04-02-2021
5 was required to give reason not necessarily detailed but
precise reason for inviting fresh tender in the process of
evaluation of fresh tender. Since in the present case evaluation
was not done objectively, and the Board has not assigned any
reason except single tender which is applicable in the case of
first tender, the Court is of the view that the respondents are
required to give reason for rejecting the tender of petitioner, the
Court is constrained to remit the matter back without quashing
the order of rejection of the tender of the petitioners to the
Board of Directors to re-examine the claim and tender of the
petitioners, the Board has to give reason for rejection of tender
at the earliest preferably within a period of 15 days from the
date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The decision
of the Board as contained Annexure-A to the counter affidavit
shall not come in the way of the respondents in taking fresh
decision within a period of 15 days of the receipt/ production of
a copy of this order.
In the larger public interest, the respondents are
directed to take fresh decision within a period of 15 days from
the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The fate of
the tender of the petitioners shall abide by fresh decision to be
taken by the respondents. Similarly in other cases of rejection of
Patna High Court CWJC No.7166 of 2020 dt.04-02-2021
Tender the Board has to give reason for rejection.
Accordingly, all the writ applications are disposed of.
It is made made clear that remand of these cases will
not be construed as a direction to the respondents to accept the
tender of the petitioners as valid and binding on the respondents.
(Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J)
BT/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N.A.
Uploading Date 05.02.2021
Transmission Date N.A.
